Matthew 16
|
Matthew 16:1-5:
The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. 5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. |
 Galyn Wiemers
In Matthew 16:1-5, the religious leaders in Christ’s day were trying to make a decision about who Jesus was. So far they had rejected the available information they already had about Jesus, including: 1. The witness of John the Baptist 2. Jesus’ own words 3. Scriptural testimony 4. Jesus’ miraculous works The Pharisees and Sadducees (religious leaders) came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. Jesus replied: “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and
overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.’ Jesus then left them and went away.” Matthew 16:1-4 Although the Pharisees and Sadducees presented themselves as open-minded seekers who wanted to know the truth, the fact was that they would only hear the truth on their terms. Jesus’ response to them indicates that he didn’t view them as real seekers desiring revelation from God, but, rather, men who had rejected the truth time and time again. We too can deduce that those who reject God’s available revelation while still presenting themselves as “open-minded truth seekers” will be rebuked just like the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus says, “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign.” Why does he say this? Because only a morally corrupt generation would reject all the revelation God had already provided. Jesus made it clear that no miraculous sign would be given. In other words, God will not ever split the sky, step out of the heavens, and appear in all his glory just long enough for a New York Times photographer to snap his picture and a CNN cameraman to catch it on film. Although that would be very impressive proof of the reality of God’s existence, our creator knows that even an incredible supernatural appearance would do mankind little good. Why? Because as soon as God vanished back into heaven, everyone who’d rejected all his previous revelations would begin to explain away the latest miracle. If men have already found a way to disprove God’s revelation in nature, logic, scripture, and history, they won’t hesitate to again use their science and philosophy to explain away even the most obvious revelation of God’s existence. Consider the Exodus generation. They were a generation of people enslaved in Egypt when Moses first spoke to Pharoah concerning their freedom. He then called upon signs from God and struck Egypt with ten terrible plagues. The Exodus generation experienced all of the ghastly plagues and later walked through the Red Sea after it was parted by the very hand of God. They were led through the wilderness by a pillar of cloud and fire, and they experienced an incredible manifestation of God on Mt. Sinai. And yet, even after witnessing all these miraculous works of God, the Exodus generation still didn’t believe he would lead them into the Promised Land. Because of their disbelief, they spent the rest of their lives wandering in the wilderness. Hebrews 3:16-18 says: “Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? --Galyn Wiemers; Hope for America’s Last Generation |
"The wicked generation and adulterous seeks a sign, but there shall be no sign given it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah; so he left then and departed? " The real explanation of this reference to Jonah is given by Luke (6:32), and missed or missdeveloped in Matthew (Matt 12:40). Nineveh recognized instinctively the inherent truth of Jonahs message, and repented. Truth is its own evidence--like leaven in the meal, like seed in the field, it does its work, and its life reveals it. God is known that way. When the chief priests demand of Jesus to be told plainly what is his authority (Mark 11:27), he carries the matter a stage further: Was the baptism of John, he asks, from heaven, i.e., God, or was it of men? Does God make His message clear, does He properly authenticate Himself?
|
Matthew 16:6:
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” |
A Clay Jar: Guard Against the Yeast of the Pharisees – Matthew 16:6
Yeast is a single-celled microorganism that feeds on carbohydrates and produces fermentation. It is used in baking to make bread rise and in brewing some types of alcohol. |
|
Matthew 16:18-19:
AND I TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE PETER, AND ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH, AND THE GATES OF HADES WILL NOT OVERCOME IT. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven" |
The very first time we see the term church used in the New Testament is when Jesus said to Peter, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). The English word church is the translation of a Greek term, “ekklesia” which means, “a called out assembly.” The term can have a couple of meanings in reference to God’s people. For instance, it can be centered on the universal church (or as the Apostles’ Creed refers to it: the holy catholic church), or it can be a reference to a local assembly, such as the church at Ephesus.
By the very definition of the church, assembling is part of what the people of God do on a regular basis. Yet, during this season of social distancing due to a pandemic that has nearly shut down the entire modern world—the church must continue to worship. We are called to worship God, and yet, even in our very best attempts, our worship is incomplete. (SOURCE: Delivered By Grace |
Pulpit Commentary:
Verse 19. - I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The metaphor of a house or castle, with its gates that must be opened with keys, is still maintained; or else the idea is of the exercise of a stewardship in a household. But the latter seems unnecessarily to introduce a new notion, and to mar the concinnity of the passage. In Isaiah 22:22 we read, "The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open" - where the figure is similar. The delivery of the keys of a city, etc., to a person, symbolizes the handing over of the authority to that person. "The kingdom of heaven" means here the visible Church of Christ in its most extended form. In this Church, hereafter to be constituted, Peter personally is promised a certain authority. This is a personal reward for his good confession, and a prediction of the way in which he was to exercise it. At the same time, there is a change in the figure used. He who was the foundation of the Church is now its overseer, and may open or shut its doors, may admit or exclude whomsoever he will, always following the guidance of the inspiring Spirit. This promise was fulfilled after the Day of Pentecost. It seems to have been at this time only promised, not conferred upon Peter. The actual gift of the power to him and his brother apostles took place after the Resurrection, as we read in John 20:22. The "power of the keys," as it is called, is considered to have two branches - a legislative power and an absolving power. The former Peter exercised when he took the lead after the effusion of the Spirit, and opened the door to the Jews. It was his action that admitted the Gentiles, without compliance with the distinctive rites of Judaism, to all the privileges of the gospel (see Acts 15:7). This most momentous precedent he established and made good for all time. These were legislative acts which he had the honour of introducing, and which, thus inaugurated, upheld, and defended by him, tended to advance that unity which the Lord held so dear. As an instance of his shutting the door of the kingdom in the face of an impious intruder, we may notice his rebuke to Simon Magus (Acts 8:21), "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter." The absolving power, supposed to be contained in the gift of the keys, seems rather to belong to the terms of the succeeding promise. We conceive that this power was first given to St. Peter in acknowledgment of his good confession, and as an emblem of unity, and was afterwards bestowed on all the apostles. That the Fathers did not regard it as limited exclusively to Peter, may he seen by quotations gathered by Wordsworth and other commentators. Thus Tertullian, 'Scorpiac.,' 10, "Memento claves hic Dominum Petro, et per illum Ecclesiae reliquisse;" St. Cyprian, 'De Unit.,' p. 107, "Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit;" St. Augustine, 'Serm.,' 295, "Has claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclcsiae." Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. "Binding" and "loosing" has been explained in various ways. Some say the terms mean admitting or debarring from the Church, which would make them identical with the power of the keys, and would give no additional privilege; whereas it is plain that further honour is intended to be bestowed. Others affirm that the expression is to be understood of absolution from sin. They take the metaphor to be derived from a prisoner and his chain. Sinners are tied and bound with the chain of their sins; they are released on repentance by the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18, 19); they are bound, when the means of grace are withheld from them, owing to the absence of tokens of' sincerity and faith. This is the view taken in the Anglican Ordinal, where to the priest it is solemnly said, "Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." But this was no special gift to Peter; it was bestowed not long after upon all the apostolic body in the very same terms (Matthew 18:18), and was indeed inherent in the ministry. This interpretation also introduces a new element into the promise, which does not agree with the context. There is nothing to lead one to expect such an item, and to supply "sins" to the general term "whatsoever" twice repeated, is harsh and unnatural. A more reasonable explanation of the phrase is derived from the use of the terms among the Jews themselves. In their Talmudic glosses we find equivalent expressions. "To bind" is to forbid, to pronounce unlawful; "to loose" is to allow, to declare lawful. And the Lord here promises Peter a certain pre-eminence in the government and organization of the Church, and that the rules which he ordained and the sentences which he should pass in the due exercise of his apostolical authority, should be ratified and confirmed in heaven (Burgon). The phrase is found in Josephus, expressive of the possession, of unrestricted authority. Thus he speaks of the Pharisees as having power to loose and bind (λύειν τε καὶ δεῖν) whom they would ('Bell. Jud.,' 1:05. 2). And it is noted that an inscription upon a statue of Isis reads, "I am the queen of the country, and whatsoever I bind no man can loose" (Diod. Sic., 1:27). This is a personal distinction conferred on St. Peter in the exercise of an office common to all the apostles, it was needful, in the early Church, that one should be chosen, primus inter pares, to be the chief office bearer and leader of the body of believers. Not that he conceived himself to be, or was recognized by others as, infallible, or as an irresponsible despot; many events before and after Pentecost forbid such an assumption; but his faith, character, and zeal pointed him out as well constituted to regulate and order the infant community, and to take the first part in maintaining that unity which was essential to the new kingdom. This personal primacy may justly be conceded, even by those who are most inimical to the arrogant claims of the papacy; for it carries not with it the consequences which have been appended. Precedence in rank does not of necessity involve supreme or even superior authority. A duke has no authority over a baron, though he has precedence. The fuller consideration of this sphere of the subject belongs rather to the historian and the polemist than to the expositor, and to such we leave it, only adding that, in his peculiar privilege, Peter stands alone, and that in his extraordinary power he had, and was intended to have, no successors.
Verse 19. - I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The metaphor of a house or castle, with its gates that must be opened with keys, is still maintained; or else the idea is of the exercise of a stewardship in a household. But the latter seems unnecessarily to introduce a new notion, and to mar the concinnity of the passage. In Isaiah 22:22 we read, "The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open" - where the figure is similar. The delivery of the keys of a city, etc., to a person, symbolizes the handing over of the authority to that person. "The kingdom of heaven" means here the visible Church of Christ in its most extended form. In this Church, hereafter to be constituted, Peter personally is promised a certain authority. This is a personal reward for his good confession, and a prediction of the way in which he was to exercise it. At the same time, there is a change in the figure used. He who was the foundation of the Church is now its overseer, and may open or shut its doors, may admit or exclude whomsoever he will, always following the guidance of the inspiring Spirit. This promise was fulfilled after the Day of Pentecost. It seems to have been at this time only promised, not conferred upon Peter. The actual gift of the power to him and his brother apostles took place after the Resurrection, as we read in John 20:22. The "power of the keys," as it is called, is considered to have two branches - a legislative power and an absolving power. The former Peter exercised when he took the lead after the effusion of the Spirit, and opened the door to the Jews. It was his action that admitted the Gentiles, without compliance with the distinctive rites of Judaism, to all the privileges of the gospel (see Acts 15:7). This most momentous precedent he established and made good for all time. These were legislative acts which he had the honour of introducing, and which, thus inaugurated, upheld, and defended by him, tended to advance that unity which the Lord held so dear. As an instance of his shutting the door of the kingdom in the face of an impious intruder, we may notice his rebuke to Simon Magus (Acts 8:21), "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter." The absolving power, supposed to be contained in the gift of the keys, seems rather to belong to the terms of the succeeding promise. We conceive that this power was first given to St. Peter in acknowledgment of his good confession, and as an emblem of unity, and was afterwards bestowed on all the apostles. That the Fathers did not regard it as limited exclusively to Peter, may he seen by quotations gathered by Wordsworth and other commentators. Thus Tertullian, 'Scorpiac.,' 10, "Memento claves hic Dominum Petro, et per illum Ecclesiae reliquisse;" St. Cyprian, 'De Unit.,' p. 107, "Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit;" St. Augustine, 'Serm.,' 295, "Has claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclcsiae." Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. "Binding" and "loosing" has been explained in various ways. Some say the terms mean admitting or debarring from the Church, which would make them identical with the power of the keys, and would give no additional privilege; whereas it is plain that further honour is intended to be bestowed. Others affirm that the expression is to be understood of absolution from sin. They take the metaphor to be derived from a prisoner and his chain. Sinners are tied and bound with the chain of their sins; they are released on repentance by the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18, 19); they are bound, when the means of grace are withheld from them, owing to the absence of tokens of' sincerity and faith. This is the view taken in the Anglican Ordinal, where to the priest it is solemnly said, "Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." But this was no special gift to Peter; it was bestowed not long after upon all the apostolic body in the very same terms (Matthew 18:18), and was indeed inherent in the ministry. This interpretation also introduces a new element into the promise, which does not agree with the context. There is nothing to lead one to expect such an item, and to supply "sins" to the general term "whatsoever" twice repeated, is harsh and unnatural. A more reasonable explanation of the phrase is derived from the use of the terms among the Jews themselves. In their Talmudic glosses we find equivalent expressions. "To bind" is to forbid, to pronounce unlawful; "to loose" is to allow, to declare lawful. And the Lord here promises Peter a certain pre-eminence in the government and organization of the Church, and that the rules which he ordained and the sentences which he should pass in the due exercise of his apostolical authority, should be ratified and confirmed in heaven (Burgon). The phrase is found in Josephus, expressive of the possession, of unrestricted authority. Thus he speaks of the Pharisees as having power to loose and bind (λύειν τε καὶ δεῖν) whom they would ('Bell. Jud.,' 1:05. 2). And it is noted that an inscription upon a statue of Isis reads, "I am the queen of the country, and whatsoever I bind no man can loose" (Diod. Sic., 1:27). This is a personal distinction conferred on St. Peter in the exercise of an office common to all the apostles, it was needful, in the early Church, that one should be chosen, primus inter pares, to be the chief office bearer and leader of the body of believers. Not that he conceived himself to be, or was recognized by others as, infallible, or as an irresponsible despot; many events before and after Pentecost forbid such an assumption; but his faith, character, and zeal pointed him out as well constituted to regulate and order the infant community, and to take the first part in maintaining that unity which was essential to the new kingdom. This personal primacy may justly be conceded, even by those who are most inimical to the arrogant claims of the papacy; for it carries not with it the consequences which have been appended. Precedence in rank does not of necessity involve supreme or even superior authority. A duke has no authority over a baron, though he has precedence. The fuller consideration of this sphere of the subject belongs rather to the historian and the polemist than to the expositor, and to such we leave it, only adding that, in his peculiar privilege, Peter stands alone, and that in his extraordinary power he had, and was intended to have, no successors.
|
Matthew 16:22-23 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
|
Paul says we do: “We take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Do you hear some battlefield jargon in that passage —”take captive every thought,” “make it obedient to Christ”? You get the impression that we are the soldiers and the thoughts are the enemies. Our assignment is to protect the boat and refuse entrance to trashy thoughts. The minute they appear on the dock we go into action. “This heart belongs to God,” we declare, “and you aren’t getting on board until you change your allegiance.” Selfishness, step back! Envy, get lost! Find another boat, Anger! You aren’t allowed on this ship. Capturing thoughts is serious business. It was for Jesus. Remember the thoughts that came his way courtesy of the mouth of Peter? Jesus had just prophesied his death, burial, and resurrection, but Peter couldn’t bear the thought of it. “Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him . . . Jesus turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns’ ” (Matthew 16:22–23). See the decisiveness of Jesus? A trashy thought comes his way. He is tempted to entertain it. A cross-less life would be nice. But what does he do? He stands at the gangplank of the dock and says, “Get away from me.” As if to say, “You are not allowed to enter my mind.” What if you did that? What if you took every thought captive? What if you refused to let any trash enter your mind? What if you took the counsel of Solomon: “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (Proverbs 4:23). --NIV Bible: Take Every Thought Captive |
|
Matthew 16:24-26:
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? |
 Max Lucado
Greed is relative. Greed is not defined by what something costs; it is measured by what it costs you. If anything costs you your family or your faith, the price is too high! ---Max Lucado |
Thomas Watson
“A contented Christian does not seek to choose his cross but leaves God to choose for him. He is content with both for the kind and the duration. A contented spirit says, 'let God apply what medicine he pleases and let it remain as long as it will, I know that when it has done it's cure and eaten the venom of sin out of my heart, God will take it off again.”
― Thomas Watson, The Art of Divine Contentment
Jean-Yves LeLoup
“Sometimes we must undergo hardships, breakups, and narcissistic wounds, which shatter the flattering image that we had of ourselves, in order to discover two truths: that we are not who we thought we were; and that the loss of a cherished pleasure is not necessarily the loss of true happiness and well-being.”
― Jean-Yves Leloup, Compassion and Meditation: The Spiritual Dynamic between Buddhism and Christianity
Jerome of Stridon Files
“For it is good to cleave to God, and to put our hopes in the Lord, so that, when we have exchanged this poor life for the kingdom of heaven, we may cry aloud: 'Whom have I in heaven but thee? There is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.' Assuredly, when we have found such wealth in heaven, we may well grieve to have sought after poor passing pleasures here on earth.”
― St. Jerome, Select Letters
― St. Jerome, Select Letters
 Paul Washer
We should never present Christ to the unbeliever as the cherry on top of an already wonderful life. The unbeliever must see that he has no life, and that all his personal achievements prior to Christ are monuments to his own vanity: made of sand and quickly passing. – Paul Washer – WE DO NOT SAVE OURSELVES BY OUR CROSS-BEARING. Jesus Christ has made full atonement for every one of His people. Following Christ in obedience, no matter how difficult, is to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. But WE do not pay a meritorious, suffering death on that cross. It is the Cross of Christ by which we are saved. --Jeff Crippen; Unholy Charade |
All systems for spiritualizing their mind generally includes some form of denial. Every religion in all the ages had some sort of denial. The problem I usually see with this “in action” is that those who “have not” and call it “denial” then require those who “have” for their provisions.
Our Lord saw that Peter regarded the cross as the wrong way for the Messiah, and he rebuked Peter, declaring that life is warfare, and all those who follow him must engage in that warfare. Christ’s cross is redemptive; our sufferings at the hands of Christs enemies are because of our willingness to stand with Christ as His people. We must deny the old Adam in ourselves and voluntarily bear the cross, stand with the new Adam as the old humanity wages war against Him. |
Wachman Nee
“Attempting to follow Him without denying the self is the root of all failures.”
― Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man
|
Matthew 16:25:
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. |
I see the verse as two parts of an affirmation of reality: 1) Anyone who applies effort to save his life will, in the end, lose it. (religion?) 2) But he who exchanges his life for Jesus, will find it. These are both inevitable realities for all men. These were the words of Jesus to his disciples, just after reprimanding Peter who had just suffered a moment of religiousness. When Jesus told his disciples that he was to suffer and be killed, Peter rose up and said “this will not happen to you!” To which the Lord rebuked him “Get thee behind me Satan.” We have all met well intended religious folks who want to claim that Christianity involves no pain, but all know this is just not so. CS Lewis said “Die before you die. There is no chance after.”
|